gsbhasin

June 18, 2013

This is a USA specific question.

How do you carry tripods while flying domestic? I am flying Southwest airlines.

Do they let it carry on if it is small and fits in a bag? Or do you need to check it in either as a luggage item or in checked-in suitcase?

Thanks,

gurpreet

February 17, 2013

The Fuji X-E1 is slow; and compared to mid-level DSLRs like Nikon D7000 it feels very slow when you first use it. But the 18-55 lens is no slouch.

Once you accept the slow operation of the Fuji it produces great images.

Anyways here is a processed image.

<a href="http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/2237/dscf0289g.jpg">geese</a>

January 6, 2013

I don't know about the X-Pro1.

I do have the X-E1 with the 18-55 lens.

I haven't yet tried the Silkypix software because I just work with the JPEGs and they are fine (much better OOC than the D7000). For me the reason to choose X-E1 there was no affordable high quality zoom in m43.

Reading on a lot of reviews the OM-D is very likely the better camera overall, what with the IBIS and weather sealing. But getting a good 12-35 (Panasonic ) would have landed me north of 2 grand USD. And m43 primes (though excellent) aren't a lot cheaper. So as a second camera the X-E1 with the 18-55 gets the most bang for the money IMHO. (I had considered the NEX6/7 but no affordable lenses and I don't see the value of buying MF lenses with adapters to use on it. Adapters are great for people who have legacy lenses)

I also own the D7000 with a few primes and the the 18-55 lens is as good if not better (Of course the zoom isn't F1.8)

Whats to like

<ul>

<li>Very lightweight kit (can carry it all day)</li>

<li>Great OOC JPEGs</li>

</ul>

Whats not to like

<ul>

<li>AF is sluggish (esp. comparing to a D7000)</li>

<li>Overall response is slower than Nikon (The D7000 makes you feel integral - it just goes)</li>

<li>EVF (still not used to it) not as good</li>

</ul>

Bottom-line I am keeping it. It comes handy to keep close all the time and travel. The D7000 is good for when I need to capture my kid's memories (where X-E1 is a fail due to AF)

Here is a shot I took yesterday (in Velvia mode) and touched with PS Elements.

http://www.photo.net/photo/16753172

November 6, 2012

Where are good DX prime lenses?

I doubt Nikon would release D7100 or D400 (and I am not interested in those) since that end of the market would probably gravitate towards D600.

Essentially the 24MP upcount is for the (rare) serious photographers like Kent who want this as backup and more towards general consumers who like the Nikon name and can say "wow it has 24 MP" and the 18-55 is the only lens they would likely get.

Essentially at least in the US, mirrorless apparently is *yet* not as popular as DSLR and this move allows Nikon to up the ante.

(I personally might get the XE-1 if the 18-55 reviews show it is very good. That way I will have a good light kit. Will still keep the D7000 with the 35 mm)

October 1, 2012

Not really.

If anything get the 35/1.8 for a light extremely sharp lens.

August 26, 2012

I should have added the reasoning for divorcing the F mount - reduce the flange distance for allowing shorter full frame lenses. The large flange focal length likely is a reason the lenses need to be so huge. Fuji, Sony, Micro m43 have significantly small such distances allowing them to produce light lenses. So does Leica. Leica R (bigger than 24X36 mm) is almost the same size as Nikon flange but covers almost medium size frame. And really good DX bodies aren't that light.

I love my DX but with a 24 mm Af-D, the total weight is 780+265g = 1045 gm - over 2 pounds.

As I have said in other posts, I might have returned a D7000 but for an emergency visit overseas. I still love the D7000 but can't fathom carrying that with a 17-55 all day. Not only is the weight atrocious - it is just begging for the photographer to be harassed every where with such massive gear.

Of course if I had a chunk of $2500 lying around, an OM-D M5 and Panasonic 12-35X would yield me the same except the shallower DoF.

This is what the average customer wants - I would even predict that the prices on such a kit would go down so maybe this is a possiblity in a few years.

Great time to be a photographer.

August 26, 2012

PREMISE: Photography has now become primarily a consumer driven industry akin to PC business. The latter has seen a decline . Behemoths like Compaq (acquired by HP), HP, IBM (sold to Lenovo its pc business), Dell etc. have been upended by of Apple. Most people don't need PCs for content creation but iPads for consuming content. Even the creators are moving rapidly to Macbook etc.

A few years , the photography business was dived into two categories -mostly at very serious hobbyists and professionals on one end of the spectrum and P&S for the consumers.

With the advent of digital imaging, camera phones and increase in memory and computing power relative to$, photography is now at the cusp where it would mostly be consumer driven.

This is where consumer electronic companies (Sony leading the charge) and Olympus are causing disruption in this space. Olympus appears similar to Apple - Apple went through nearly a death choke before iPod brought its fortunes back; Olympus is on to something similar with Pen and OM-D and is likely going to reap its benefits

Nikon appears to be like HP (HP - buying Palm; launched a tablet, removed it) where it is being reactive (V1/J1 series) and living on legacy (millions of lenses) can be re-used. There is a certain merit to the argument that unlike HP Nikon has a legacy in the photography business which will help it avoid utter irrelevance. This is because lenses are per se not as disposable or fall out of use as soon as computers; though this is a partial premise since not all legacy lenses provide capable of providing great imaging capability on new digital bodies.

I am a Nikon user and love their ergonomics. Hence this thread - Philososphy subsection IMHO Nikon is reacting to the wave that is disrupting the photography industry. It is being very conservative and not doing enough to ride the way.

What would/could it do -

<ol>

<li>Divorce from the F mount (or keep it for Pros)</li>

<li>Provide light weight bodies and lenses in FF or at least DX format (sorry CX does not count)</li>

<li>Improve user design substantially</li>

<li>Accelerate move to Android (one camera launched but needs to do more)</li>

</ol>

The consumeriztion of the industry means what the masses use will drive what the pros would use. Not immediately. But eventually. Among consumers Nikon has probably the biggest brand names. Most ordinary folks don't know Leica, Zeiss etc. However they also do have brand awareness of Sony and most know of Olympus. These two are leading the disruption. Olympus more so than Sony since photography is in its core DNA; Sony may not be that motivated since it has diverse consumer electronic business.

The Huns are at the door. Is Rome ready or resting on its past conquests?

(Please be civil in comments which are very welcome)

August 25, 2012

Save the money and get the 1.8G.

Posted August 23, 2012 · August 23, 2012

I would wait for Photokina announcements, and pre-announcements coming soon.

If the goal is to reuse Nikon D lenses D7000 is a great bet but with good lenses attached not siginificantly lighter than any Nikon kit.

If looking elsewhere - NEX is great but lacks good glass. Unless you have bags of Leica mount Leica or Zeiss glass - in which case it is a great fit. I have seen the manual focus via the screen and it is superb.

Fuji have apparently great image quality but are quirky to use - XPro1 and X-100; not cheaper either.

Which leads to m43 and professional reviewers - stevehuffphoto.com and soundimageplus.blogspot.com rave about its image quality- not quite FF but closer to APS-C. The beauty is they have much light lenses.

Everyone is unique, I personally cannot live w/o a good EVF -optical or electronic

This rules out E-P* series of m43.

But if you have $2500 in spare - an OM-D with a Panasonic 12-35 2.8 kit lens would give you a much lighter image system equivalent to D7000+17-55. Would be great for travel. You would lose out on the depth of field for sure for portraits. Steve Huff and others give the Panasonic 12-35 rave reviews, plus this kit would be weather sealed.

August 23, 2012

People are so scared.'where is the love?'

This ain't a setup, just meet in a public space and inspect the goods. No need for backups, it is just a used camera not a collector item or rare piece of art.

Take a shot and see how the camera is? Does shutter sound OK, does pic appear ok on the LCD ?

That's all. A lot of folks are walking away from heavy DSLR kits to smaller m43 types.

Btw I really like Vince's style.

And the D5100 kit is a good suggestion though I personally didn't like its viewfinder and coughed up for a D7000 and would think D90 has a good viewfinder too.

August 22, 2012

D7000 and 35 1.8 DX<div>

00akIp-491877584.jpg.da2c648127661f6bc6ecc0263b26d762.jpg

</div>

August 7, 2012

Hi Joel,

I don't mind getting a 20 /24 af-d and 85 1.8 g. With the 35 DX and 50 1.8 af-d I would be set.

Hesitant on 20/24 since a lot if reviews I have read point out that neithe is as good as the 35 ( which I realize is at

least 10-15 years younger design and DX) on 16 MP digital.

You are correct. Very rarely have I shot at 18 mm end if my 18-70 on my D70. It is mostly at 20-50 mm .

As to 14-24 types they are too big.

Would you mind posting center and edge crops of your sharpest pics taken with the 20 mm on D7000?

Maybe that lens or the 24-85 is what I would get.

Thx,

Gurpreet

August 5, 2012

Can anyone having both the 35 mm DX and the 16-85 shoot @ 35 /F5 the same scene with both and post center and edge crops?

If someone happens to have the 24-85 VR, can you add that too to a comparison above?

Maybe I just got lucky but my 35 is super sharp even @ 1.8

If the 16-85 @ F5 is as good, then I guess that's the way to go. My 50 AF-D 1.8 doesn't get sharp until F2.8 so 35 is the new yard stick (Yes i realise it is a prime, hence requesting comparisons at F5. Also know that zooms don't have F1.8)

And I thought 50 AF-D was good enough but guess CAD helps improve designs even more.

August 5, 2012

Good to know KS has it in stock. Will

pay a visit. Thx Shun

18-105/200/300 don't interest me . Too

heavy and not good IQ.

I have become a stickler for IQ.

Still might get the 24-85:)

Would 36 mm suffice for yosemite?

August 5, 2012

I am in need for a general purpose high quality travel lens for my D7000. I use primarily a 35 /1.8 DX and sometimes it is either too short or too long. I would have liked the 16-85 DX or its rumored replacement and none of them are available. So I am thinking of getting the 24-85. (Ideally would have loved a 20 or 24 mm DX prime and the 85 /1.8G ) Here are the reasons why I am considering 24-85 VR for the D7000:

<ol>

<li>Shun and others who have tested it for PN, rate it very highly.</li>

<li>It is full frame so edge performances on DX would even be better</li>

<li>If I do get to an FX in the next few years - i would just need a body</li>

<li>The price is right</li>

</ol>

BTW, hope to visit Yosemite in the very nearer future. And considering everything is shot at from a distance, would 28 mm eq. focal length be missed. (The sigma 17-50 is another contender that provides that. But it seems a mixed bag. And so do Tamron etc. There seem to be more compromises in IQ on non Nikon lenses. Of course I do lose 1-2 stops and 8 mm of focal length on the wise side) What would you do in my shoes?

August 3, 2012

Very nice work Paul.

August 1, 2012

Swami, I wish i could say $ was not an issue.

Seriously consider switching platforms. Olympus OM-D with a very lightweight Panasonic 12-25/2.8 is what you need. Both are weather sealed and if you watch closely on dpreview.com's tests OM-D's IQ is nearly indistinguishable to the Nikon D7000. (I have pixel peeped images at various ISO on Oly review).

What do you lose? Shallow DOF since on the 43 sensor the DOF is 1 stop more than on the APS-C Nikon DX. Again if money is not an object get a 45/1.8 and soon-to-available 75/1.8 from Olympus. Bob Atkins rates the latter very high and I quote "I don’t think I’ve seen better performance from a lens, certainly not one priced under $1000. Some of the Canon super-telephotos are this good, but they’re not f1.8 and they’re prices over $5000." This could be a long telephoto while the 45/1.8 is equivalent to a an 85 /1.8G on Nikon (moderate telephoto) except that it has 1 more stop of DOF.

And Oly has great 12 mm (24 mm in 35 mm eq.) primes. Panasonic makes a 7-14 mm ultrawide too. There isn't a reason for carrying the extra weight.

If I was starting from scratch and/or money were no object that is what I would do.

July 31, 2012

Of all people - I think Ilkka gets my intent, so thank you. I started with the 50/1.8 D and used it for the first 2 years exclusively. And the 35 mm DX for the last 4 months. And yes a 20 or even a 24 mm DX 2.8 would just be fine. Coupled that with an 85/1.8 G, i would be set. FWIW, I have started to think if i should just get the Sigma 17-50/2.8 I have held off on it because the reviews are mostly on two polar extremes - too good or serious QC issues. And with my D7000 exhibiting some focus issues on the 18-70, I don't know if a 3rd party lens would necessarily exacerbate those issues. Or I will check if any m43 would suffice. BTW- I have printed a 16X20 with the D70 and 18-70 and it is acceptable to me. So i am not too worried about m43. At the end or the day I would like to avoid fragmentation so if the only choices are a $1400 17-55 or a decent m43 with a fast zoom (The Panasonic 12-35 X goes for 1299) - i may just get a small m43 with an awesome zoom. I realise the m43 has even 1 more stop DOF than DX but at least it covers the need in a much lighter package. Again all of this is warranted by lack of options. To the nikon fan boys, while Nikon does offer substantially more options than Canon, i hope it realises that Canikon are not the only game in town. M43 has really opened up another frontier. If anyone reads stevehuffphoto.com , you would notice a lot of pros who use m43 when they want light and portable. And with advances in CAD and especially higher computing power - I think designing 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 DX that are awesome - is within the realm of reality. So yes Nikon has its own goals and challenges and consumers there own. It is funny observing people's comments. The key words for continuing the discussion are: Affordable high quality Nikon standard zoom for DX. All of the last sentence. Nikon has produced a 24-85 G for DX which Shun ranks highly. The 16-85 G for DX has been unavailable in US for a long time so it is non existent. REPEAT from before: I emphasize with the natural disaster Nikon faced in Japan and Thailand but they have been able to launch V1/J1, and other lenses. If 16-85 is getting a new version either an announcement to that effect or availability of the current 16-85 would be a signal for its commitment to DX serious users. BTW - this is my 3rd Nikon body and 4th purchase (1 recommended to a family member)

July 28, 2012

For Peter Hamm. The 18-70 just seems unable to produce as vibrant pictures as say the 35 mm can. I can post samples where the 35 at F2 produces biting sharp details. ------------------------------------------------------------- As to "soccer mom" i think the V1/J1 and their successors are the soccer mom camera(V1's AF is touted to be very fast). The D3200 etc. seems aimed at novices who think you need DSLRs to have optimum qualities images.

That being said the Fuji XPro1 is almost the perfect camera (The body cost is higher but the lenses are reasonably priced for fast apertures). The big cockroach (and not fly) in the XPro1 ointment seems to be the so-so AF which precludes, folks with kids to buy them (assuming the budget is there).

Where i am going with this, is that the options for high image quality are not restricted to a DSLR alone.

So if I needed a standard zoom to produce decent 12X18 capable images, do I look at Nikon's 17-55 for $1800 or do i say -hmm ..let me keep the D7000 for capturing my kid's images.

But for travel maybe a decent m43 or the Sony RX100 would suffice since there isn't a good lightweight zoom Nikon wants to produce. Over a period of time, I stop carrying the D7000.

For the poseurs the 18-200/300 Nikon lenses are apparent badges of quality. But I don't want to shell a grand for the 18-300 to get ok images - heck I don't even need that much range.

I guess September will unfortunately prove this out. Very earlier this year I had dared to suggest that the then upcoming OM-D would be as good as the D7000 and the Nikon faithful jumped at me.

In March I ordered a D7000 and had full intention of returning the package un-opened to B&H except that an unforseen family emergency had me to fly overseas for an undetermined period of time the day I got my package. Literally 5 hours before the flight!!

And since the return policy was 30 days I decided to take the D7000 and the 35 mm. Not unhappy with these 2 per se, but kind of locked into not able to grow the system (Had hoped the 16-85 would become available or its rumored f4 successor be announced.

So maybe I just salvage my losses and cut short the D7000 before September makes it apparent that the DX is not for the serious user?

July 28, 2012

That is not what I am saying Starvy.

The 35/1.8 is super sharp even at f1.8 much better than 50/1.8 D (it is also at least 10 years younger so advances in CAD helped). It has exceeded my expectations for the US $200 that i paid for it.

And the new 24-85 G has been well praised by Shun Cheung and that is under US $ 600 NEW.

The question really is does Nikon care to provide good affordable optics to DX? ( I am not clamoring for exotic ultra wides to be dirt cheap but a 24-70 mm equivalent is a reasonable expectation)

July 28, 2012

Is Nikon abandoning the DX prosumers or forcing them to the FX line?

Here is why - There are no good high quality lenses anymore.

<ol>

<li>16-85 has not been available starting this year (or longer) ( Sony has a good 16-50 2.8 DX type lens that many think is a "G" -premium lens except for the label)</li>

<li>No fast primes for DX (only 35/1.8 and it is 52.5 mm eq.)</li>

<li>Existing affordable 20, 24 primes don't have good repute on high resolution bodies (these could have been some wide lenses)</li>

<li>18-200, 18-300, 18-105 not stellar and geared to all-in-one types</li>

<li>17-55 lacks VR and is extremely heavy and costly</li>

</ol>

BTW, I do have an 18-70 and it seriously is not a good match for the D7000. I have tried the cheapo 18-55 VR on a D5100 and it is OK at best.

So the way I see it: either you upgrade to the FX (rumored) D600 and get a 24-85 G/3.5-4.5 or if you are a DX user Nikon's message seems to be Get the costly 17-55 OR Be relegated to "It has 24 MP" D3200 "bragging" user with a "kit lens 18-55" or "It is 18-300" lens type user.

So for anyone stuck with the D7000 in 2012 - Too bad, but hey you are welcome to upgrade to FX or get the 2 pound heavy and US$1800 17-55.

Do other serious DX users feel the same?

(I realize there were natural disasters in Thailand and Japan last year and it was very unfortunate. That hasn't stopped Nikon from introducing V1/J1 , 85/1.8, 24-85/3.5-4.5 , 28/1.8 etc. So it is a conscious business decision and not just bad luck alone)

July 22, 2012

Lastly - this is an in-focus with 35 mm 1.8 DX @ f2.

(So while DX 18mm, and 25 mm should have more depth of fields esp. at F stops 8 and 5.6 respectively, the 35 mm focal at f2 (yes it is not a zoom) is superb. yea there is a bit of chromatic aberration on the upper edge of the Harmonica but that is not the focus of this thread - and this is a "Standard" Out of the Camera JPEG @ 100 % crop.

On a related note, I find the 35 1.8 so much better than even the 50 1.8 D or the 18-70 for sharpness and contrast

(Look at this edited image - <a href="../photo/16079592">http://www.photo.net/photo/16079592</a>) This is also at f2<div></div>

July 22, 2012

F8, focal length = 25 mm (37.5 mm eq for 35 mm), shutter speed = 1/125

Notice that even with F8, the faces are not sharp but look at the light towards the right of the arm and it is sharp as is the concrete below the "W" on the sign. Again camera shows focus was acquired.

In both I used almost center point or close to it and AF-C<div></div>

July 22, 2012

Hi guys, I have heard a bit of back-focus/front focus issues on D7000 but have not bothered, until then. I use my D7000 almost exclusively with the 35 DX and see tack sharp results even at f1.8 though some chromatic aberration is visible sometimes. But very happy with the 35 mm. Yesterday, took a family excursion and put the old trusty 18-70 mm on it. ( I own this lens for over 8 years and never witnessed any issues with the D70). Also double checked to see if it was user error or low shutter speed (camera shake). None. Camera indicated the focus dot confirmation and the focus point was on the wife's eye in both images. (Ignore the colors - this was JPG in Vivid mode, I haven't bothered editing the RAW file) Notice that the background is in focus in both and is sharp. Image 1 at f5.6 focal length = 18 mm(27 mm eq.), shutter speed = 1/60 (1/2X)<div>

</div>

July 4, 2012

All my d70 pics show this and I haven't seen this with the 50 mm on d70. I can more samples of sea vistas

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by gsbhasin